It's fair to say that the relationship between the
military and the news media is at times an awkward
one.
(read more)
Those of us that grew up as cold warriors had
for mentors people that fought, and lost, the war in Vietnam. From their
perspective, they had never lost a significant battle tactically, but had lost
the war strategically because they had somehow lost the battle for public
opinion.
We fought Vietnam as a war of attrition , something at which the US
military, with it's access to a relatively large manpower pool and virtually
unlimited materiel resources, had been very good at, at least since the Civil
War. It served us very well there, as well as in both World Wars. One might
argue that it served us less well in Korea - in my opinion it worked very well
indeed, especially once MacArthur opened up a second front in the North Korean
rear at
Inchon . When UN forces approached the Yalu River, bringing about a
massive response from Chinese "volunteers," the strategic risks elevated
enormously, as did the cost of victory. Attrition warfare is a Clausewitzian
grinding of armies against one another, a test of will as much as anything else.
How much destruction of an opposing force can your enemy endure, before his will
collapses? How much can you endure?
Our
enemies in Vietnam fought a war of maneuver warfare they therefore fought
asymetrically . (For a brief summary of the differences between wars of maneuver
and attrition, click here .) One of the key features of
maneuver warfare is identifying centers of gravity at all levels, strategic,
operational and tactical. Our center of gravity in Vietnam was public opinion.
Most people realize that the Tet
Offensive in Vietnam was a crushing operational and tactical defeat
for the NVA. At home, it was played as a turning point, in our inevitable slide
towards defeat. While it is not my goal to venture into the still boiling waters
of public discourse on the war in Vietnam, it's conduct, means or even whether
it was a "Just War ," I do want to point out that this shading of
the news (today we might call it "spin") subsequent to Tet was felt by many in
the military as a betrayal.
Public
opinion of course, is shaped at least partially by the news media. To the
military, this means that certain conditions of victory are not entirely in
their own hands. Which is why we have Public Affairs Officers to try to help
shape the message. While most of us who concern ourselves with kinetic effects
find this requirement distasteful, we understand the importance - in warfare,
victory is everything.
So we are
predisposed through received knowledge from our elders, and personal experience.
Some reporters can be downright snarky, I've discovered - one NYT reporter that
interviewed me during Operation Iraqi Freedom turned downright nasty when it
became clear to him that I wouldn't reveal any classified information. We
learned that the press can be dangerous to us, and to the accomplishment of our
mission - we tend to be suspicious of their motives.
The press on the other hand, has a job
to do, they need us for our stories, are convinced of their own rectitude, but
suspect of our intentions. Fully aware that the PAO's are there to help shape
the message, they treat us as though we were dissembling (we cannot) and
withholding (we might). Since the concept of honor is by no means an
anachronistic one to military members, this in turn serves to amplify the power
lines of tension.
As a junior officer, I
by no means took as gospel my seniors' distaste for the press. But one day,
while watching a TV show by press people about themselves (instructive public
navel-gazing), I heard one of the mediators ask this question: "If you were in
the field with a guerrilla force set to ambush US soldiers, and you could safely
warn the soldiers, would you do so?"
The
answers were also instructive - in essence, "no." They were there to report
events, not to shape them. (I believe the person answering was either Bernie
Shaw or Dan Rather, but cannot remember, and could not find a
link.)
At that moment, a switch was
thrown in my head. I understood - these were also the enemy, but we had to treat
them as though they were not.
Since then,
my thinking has matured a bit, but I still view the press somewhat differently
than I think they view themselves. They are a body of people with a job to do,
whose interests do not always coincide with mine.
Which
is a long, and rather strange introduction to this story . NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof went
to Cambodia and liberated a pair of young girls from sexual slavery, returning
them to their homes. Read it, come back, and tell me what you
think.
At
first I didn't know quite what to make of it, operating under my own set of
cognitive lenses. It turns out that I'm self-trained to look for motivation from
the press, as though motivation was more important than effect. One asks why
would he do that? How many girls were left enslaved? Did he get reimbursed for
his costs? Did he make money off the
story?
And then I realized that I had
conditioned myself, when dealing with the press, to use the thinking that
inspires Type M arguments , which I abhor in others.
Because at its most elemental, what
Kristof has done is an absolutely and fundamentally decent thing to do - two
people has been liberated from an unspeakably horrible existence. That good
which we are capable of doing, we ought to do. And the fact that you can't save
everyone does not mean we should not save anyone. (Tyler Cowen, of the Volokh
Conspiracy, has a somewhat more mechanistic take
.)
The fact that Kristof has done so,
speaks volumes to his character: "(H)e
who saves one life, it is as though he has saved the
universe." Perhaps by publishing his story, he can
help many
others.
Just
another side trip, on my voyage of self-discovery. Thanks for coming
along.
Posted @
09:33 AM
|
Posted in
""
|
Sendit
|
Credo
"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." - John Paul Jones
"Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Ceasar and Cleopatra"
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friederich Nietzsche
